SoVote

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Jun/14/22 10:11:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by hundreds of citizens across Canada who continue to call on Parliament to protect the conscience rights of medical professionals from coercion or intimidation to provide or refer patients for assisted suicide or euthanasia. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental right, clearly articulated in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want to thank these petitioners for their engagement on this important issue.

76 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Jun/14/22 4:13:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, at third and final reading. I will be splitting my time with the amazing member for Lakeland, who served our caucus very well in a previous Parliament as the shadow minister for public safety. This is yet another bill brought back from the previous Parliament that died when the Prime Minister called his snap election. To say that I am extremely disappointed with the introduction of this ill-conceived bill, as opposed to something that is wanted and needed by Canadians, would be an understatement. There are so many other issues facing Canadians that are more important than this misguided legislation. First and foremost for Canadians would be relief from the rising inflation tax brought on by the government's out-of-control spending. The price of everything is increasing, and the government has decided that now is the time to decrease sentences for criminals. Another top-of-mind issue for Canadians has been ending all federal mandates. It seems the pressure by Canadians has finally had the desired effect. However, in the case of this bill, the Liberal government is doubling down on its soft-on-crime agenda and making life easier for criminals. While the government claims that its focus is on protecting Canadians from harms, such as COVID-19, it is making society less safe with this proposed legislation by eliminating mandatory minimum prison time for criminals. With the bill, the Liberals would eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of offences and more. As Canadians learn more about this proposed legislation, they are alarmed and are finding it difficult to believe. Imagine a convenience store worker, maybe making minimum wage. It is one in the morning when suddenly someone walks into the store, pulls out a gun, fires one shot into the ceiling and then points the gun at the worker, demanding cash. The trauma that this scenario would create for someone is difficult to comprehend. What the Liberals are saying, however, is that the criminal in this realistic but made-up scenario should not receive a mandatory minimum sentence for what they have done. Why are the Liberals doing this? They believe that mandatory minimum prison sentences are unfair. Really? Unfair to whom? Obviously, the Liberals are taking the side of the criminal. By eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, the government is standing up for criminals and completely ignoring the victims. What about fairness for the victim of the crime? What about fairness for the family members of the victim who will need to support the loved who has gone through such a traumatic experience? What about fairness for the community, as a whole, in which the crime was perpetrated? Remember, we are talking about convicted criminals, not innocent people. When someone is sentenced, they have already been found guilty of the crime for which they were charged. Why are the Liberals more concerned with the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on criminals than on the benefit and reassurance they provide to the victims and the community at large? I cannot leave the subject of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for firearms offences without commenting on the cognitive dissonance held by the Liberals as it relates to firearms policy. On one hand, they want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for offences such as weapons trafficking and importing or exporting a firearm knowing it is unauthorized, but on the other hand, they are increasing rules and regulations for law-abiding firearms owners. Talk about a lack of fairness. According to the Prime Minister and his government, if a person follows the rules and does not commit a crime, they will punish that person. However, if a person commits a crime, they will make that person's sentence lighter. If this was not bad enough, not only would Bill C-5 eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for certain firearm offences, but it would also eliminate mandatory prison time for drug dealers for crimes such as trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting, and production of substances such as fentanyl, crystal meth and others. To be clear, we are not discussing simple possession. We are talking about eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for those who traffic or produce these harmful drugs. I would like to read a few lines from a Global News story from last September in relation to a drug bust carried out by the Saskatoon Police Service. It states: Police said they seized a total of 6158.3 grams of methamphetamine, 339.8 grams of powdered cocaine, 5.2 grams of psilocybin and 0.3 grams of fentanyl. Cellphones, scales, packaging materials and over $67,000 in cash were also seized, police added. “The message must be clear, organizations responsible for the importation, manufacture and distribution of illicit drugs in Saskatoon are responsible for an overwhelming proportion of harm within our community. The drug trade is intrinsically linked to guns, violence and victimization,” Supt. Patrick Nogier said in a release. “The Saskatoon Police Service will continue to focus on organizations benefiting from illegal activities as they pertain to the drug trade in Saskatoon.” These are the types of crimes that the legislation proposes to eliminate mandatory minimums for. These criminals prey upon people with addictions. Furthermore, as the quote by Superintendent Nogier indicates, these criminals use violence in carrying out their activity, which negatively impacts the broader community in which they exist. Police forces across Canada do their utmost to protect the communities they serve. They are not helped by this type of legislation. I would like to read a section from another Global News story from last fall. It states: Superintendent Patrick Nogier with the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) said drug and general seizures have increased by almost eight per cent over the last year and SPS is continuing with efforts to reduce drug trafficking. “These are significant seizures that are taking a product off the street that has the potential of doing a lot of harm to your community,” said Nogier. The Street Crimes Unit alone has seized over 15 kilograms of crystal meth over the last year. How can any member of the House say he or she supports the police and the work they do while at the same time supporting this legislation? Criminals belong in jail and addicts need help to break free of their addiction. With this bill, criminals would spend less time in jail and addicts would not get the help they need. Lastly, I want to highlight my opposition to one more misguided aspect of this bill, and that is the expansion of conditional sentencing options for many violent crimes. If passed, this legislation will allow criminals convicted of serious crimes, such as prison breach, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons for material benefit, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon and many others, to serve their sentence in some way other than in jail, such as through house arrest. Once again, what about the victims? How does allowing a criminal convicted of sexual assault or trafficking, for example, to serve their sentence in the community, and potentially the same neighbourhood as the victim, make any sense? The Liberal government is eroding our justice system by passing laws that support convicted criminals while ignoring the victims of crime. I will vote against this bill, and I encourage all members to join me.

1296 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:23:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his observation. My answer will be to the point, as was his question. It is up to Parliament to decide what the minimum and maximum sentences for an offence should be and it is a judge's duty to decide how he or she will apply those maximums and minimums based on the circumstances in each case.

64 words

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:25:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member if she supports mandatory minimum sentences that remain for crimes such as murder, high treason and other violent crimes. If she does not, then we should do away with those mandatory minimums as well. Victims of crime deserve better from the government and this Parliament, and I would encourage all members to reject this bill.

62 words

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:26:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it has been entertaining to watch New Democrats, since March 22, contort themselves into a pretzel to support whatever the government introduces and to continue to import American politics into everything that is happening. When someone commits a crime and is subsequently convicted of it, there is always a victim. I do not understand why the NDP claims to support victims, but then is so inconsistent when its support for the government is reliant on a bill that would do anything but.

89 words

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/14/22 4:27:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I hear from constituents every day who are deeply alarmed about the direction in which this country is going under the Liberal government.

27 words

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Jun/14/22 5:12:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the member's speech, he acknowledged and actually waxed eloquent on the member for Humber River—Black Creek's ability to reflect and look back on decisions made. I want to provide this member with the opportunity to correct the record when he stated that the former Conservative government made the decision not to act on the truth and reconciliation report, given that interim report was tabled in May and the final report was only tabled in December of 2015. In between the two there was an election and a different government.

99 words